David Alexander: Who pays the rent when love breaks down?
This article contains affiliate links. We may earn a small commission on items purchased through this article, but that does not affect our editorial judgement.
Most initially sign up for a short lease, usually starting with six months, but this becomes more long term if they find it difficult to save the deposit for a mortgage or – as is increasingly the case – become settled in their current domestic circumstances coupled with an appreciation of the financial freedom and flexibility that renting offers but buying does not.
When couples sign a lease they become jointly responsible for the financial costs of their letting arrangement. Unfortunately, some enter a lease commitment thinking with their hearts rather than their heads and that is when problems arise.
Advertisement
Hide AdAdvertisement
Hide AdOften the cause is financial; believing that two can live more cheaply than one they take on a level of accommodation that turns out to be less affordable than they initially thought. Others simply find that they are just not compatible and that they were really better together while living apart.
Frequently the outcome is one of the duo leaving the accommodation – in some cases without giving the “other half” notice and on occasions not even providing a forwarding address. Whether resident or not, however, the terms of the lease means the departed resident remains responsible for a “joint” share of the letting costs.
As the market has grown and developed professionally, agents are becoming increasingly adept at tracing who “do a bunk” (whether in a relationship or living alone) and recovering not just what they owe in rent but all the attendant administrative and legal costs. Even a joint tenant who moves out because she (or, on occasions, he) is being physically or mentally abused by a partner will still be responsible for half of all the costs related to the letting.
Inevitably, not all “midnight flitters” who are eventually traced are in a position to pay what they owe, in which case the person still in residence will be targeted for the full rental and all associated costs incurred until the lease ends. Some tenants in this position are understandably angry and refuse to pay on the basis that they are the “innocent party”.
However, standing on principle usually costs them dear – a lost deposit, possible court action and, perhaps most serious of all, a black mark on their credit rating.
Depending on the circumstances, a landlord may have to write off some rental income or may, eventually, manage to get back all the money owed. In most relationship break-ups both parties will make a genuine attempt to live up to their financial responsibilities. But for the 1 or 2 per cent of landlords who get badly burned it is a 100 per cent problem.
Advertisement
Hide AdAdvertisement
Hide AdSometime in 2018 every new residential lease in Scotland will come without a timescale; it will have a start date but no pre-set finishing date because the decision to end it will be of the tenant’s choosing. The landlord’s right to terminate, on the other hand, will be extremely limited. The new law is extremely unpopular with landlords because giving tenants the right to up sticks whenever they please brings uncertainty and there are concerns it raises the scope for more rental voids.
Fortunately, most tenants in the conventional rental sector are responsible people and, one hopes, only a small minority are likely to take unfair advantage of their new freedoms. Somewhat ironically, greater tenant flexibility on lease lengths (however unwanted by landlords) is likely to enhance the appeal of renting among the public.
For agents, the new regime will inevitably require further tightening of their tenant-vetting procedures. And in the case of young couples setting up home for the first time, the strength of their relationship will become almost as important an issue as their perceived ability to keep up with their rental payments!
• David Alexander is managing director of DJ Alexander